11.367 the law and politics of land use...

11.367 Course Syllabus (February 2018) 1 of 15

11.367 THE LAW AND POLITICS OF LAND USE Spring Semester 2018

Tuesday - Thursday

2:30 - 4:00 p.m.

Room 10-401

Terry Szold, Adjunct Professor of Land Use Planning

COURSE OUTLINE AND SYLLABUS

This course focuses on local and state power to regulate land use and development.

There is particular emphasis on the tools most frequently used by planners and

communities, including zoning. The legal framework and foundation for zoning and the

evolution of land use regulations are given considerable attention. Development

decisions rendered by public agencies are reviewed, critiqued, and discussed in relation to

the constitutional and other issues that are explored.

Given the perceived narrowing of the relationship between public improvements

requirements and development impact, the course provides students with an opportunity

to learn and become more skilled in crafting legally defensible regulations and programs.

Supreme Court cases and decisions such as Nollan, Lucas, Dolan, Koontz, Kelo, and

Tahoe-Sierra are examined. The potential lessons and prescriptions from these cases and

decisions are discussed and analyzed.

While this course is focused on the foundation for land use regulation and evolving

regulatory standards, it is not a subject that emphasizes the complex mechanics of the

judicial system or litigation strategies. Rather, it is a course designed for the generalist

planner. Students are exposed to the land use and regulatory issues that they may face in

their future work endeavors, and the potential legal challenges that may result from the

implementation of the various programs that they develop or administer.

Course materials and readings are drawn from land use law literature, a textbook, journal

articles, and relevant publications. Legal cases and decisions rendered by regulatory

agencies are also used. Where relevant to specific topics, local land use lawyers and

planners join as guest lecturers, and will participate in selected class discussions and as

“judges” for the student workshop at the end of the semester.

Student evaluations are based on completion of a final examination (30%), class

participation (25%), two short papers (25%), and workshop participation (20%).


Academic Integrity For information on MIT’s rules on academic integrity, also applicable to this class, please

go to the MIT Website: http://web.mit.edu/academicintegrity.

Students with Disabilities

This class follows the MIT rules on the accommodation for students with disabilities,

details for which are at: http://mit.edu/uaap/sds/students/

Assistance with Writing and Communication

The WCC (Writing and Communication Center) at MIT offers free one-on-one

professional advice from communication experts. The WCC works with undergraduate,

graduate students, post-docs, faculty, staff, alums, spouses and partners. The WCC is

located in E18-233, 50 Ames Street. To register and to make appointments, go to

https://mit.mywconline.com/ . To access the WCC’s many pages of advice about writing

and oral presentations, go to http://cmsw.mit.edu/writing-and-communication-center/ .

Check the online scheduler for up-to-date hours and available appointments.

Instructor (Terry’s) Office Hours By appointment (generally Tuesday and Thursday, after class)

Below, readings for each class are listed under each subject category for the class dates

provided. See the section “Assigned & Optional Readings” at the end of this course

outline/syllabus for more detail.

Where the symbol appears, the reading is posted under “Materials” on the

Stellar/Learning Modules web site for the class. (Please note that additional materials not

listed here are also posted on the Stellar site, not to be covered in class, but which may be

of interest to you during the semester.

Where the symbol () appears, these are suggested additional readings that are optional.

You may wish to peruse or skim these for general content, if time permits, or if greater

exploration of the subject is desired.

I. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND FOUNDATION

FOR LAND USE CONTROLS

Feb. 6th

• Course Introduction: Land Use Controls and the Legal Framework

(To be led by instructor, no assigned readings.)

http://web.mit.edu/academicintegrity

http://mit.edu/uaap/sds/students/

https://owa.exchange.mit.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=0YfgCvaXeSQ9lHQvyYBm7psr64QEhasz6-QMFNOWxn86tkAMi2fVCA..&URL=https%3a%2f%2fmit.mywconline.com%2f

https://owa.exchange.mit.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=yPX0NxAbZocn0LnX9_5Prbng7_vXiI4DT8DBjaG9M6U6tkAMi2fVCA..&URL=http%3a%2f%2fcmsw.mit.edu%2fwriting-and-communication-center%2f


Feb. 8th

• History of Land Use Controls; Nuisance Law and Police Power

Kerr, Orin S., “How to Read a Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students,”

The Green Bag: An Entertaining Journal of Law, 2007.

Cases Reviewed: Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp.

Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.

Reading Assignment: Mandelker, et al., Planning and Control of Land Development,

Ninth Edition, 2016, (Henceforth referred to as “PCLD”), pages 1-26; 67-81. As noted

previously, starred cases/documents in this document mean they are on Stellar.

Feb. 13th

• The Takings Issue: Kelo and the “Zoning Classics”

Cases Reviewed: Hadacheck v. Sebastian Kelo v. City of New London (Full U.S. Supreme Court decision and various other extra materials

on this case/topic also posted on Stellar for those interested.)

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 82-124.

Additional required reading:

“Condemnation Nation: The big business of eminent domain,” Joshua Kurlantzick,

Harpers, October, 2005.

Optional:

See also these newer cases on the topic, posted or linked to from the Stellar site: County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family (summary only)

Goldstein v. N.Y. State Urban Development Corp.

Rhode Island Economic Development Co. v. The Parking Co..

Also worth a review is the summary on Stellar of Arizona’s Prop 207, and these readings:

“Village of Euclid v. Ambler: The Bettman Amicus Brief,” Planning &

Environmental Law, March 2006.

“Eminent Domain for Private Gain? The Kelo v. City of New London Decision and

Aftermath,” Brian W. Blaesser, Planning & Environmental Law, September 2005.

Tamulevich, Susan, “New London Readies for Its Close-Up,” Planning, April 2013.


Silver, Christopher, “The Racial Origins of Zoning,” pages 23-42. In Thomas, June

Manning, and Marsha Ritzdorf, eds., Urban Planning and the African American

Community: In the Shadows, Sage Publications, 1997.

Feb. 15th

• The Takings Issue - Continued

Cases Reviewed: Penn. Central Transportation Co. v. New York

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Dolan v. City of Tigard


Feb. 20th (No class; Monday schedule of classes held due to President's Day)

Feb. 22nd (1st Written Assignment Distributed and Discussed)

• Per Se and Temporary Takings; Applying the Penn Central Test

Cases Reviewed: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Lingle v. Chevron

Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 172-251. Skim Notes pages.

Optional:

Kayden, Jerold S., “Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency: About More Than Moratoria,” in Land Use Law & Zoning Digest,

Vol.54, No.10, October 2002, pages 3-5. (If interested, see additional articles on the case

under “Additional Resources” on the Stellar site.)

“Deconstructing Lingle: Implications for Takings Doctrine,” The John Marshall Law

Review, Winter 2007.

Zasloff, Jonathan, “Koontz and Exactions: Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” Legal Planet,

Berkley Law/UCLA Law,” June, 2013.

Echiverria, John D., “A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development,” The New York

Times, June 26, 2013.


Feb. 27th

Due Process and Equal Protection Limitations; Remedies for Violations;

Barriers to Judicial Relief and Ripeness; Abstention

Cases Reviewed: George Washington University v. District of Columbia

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (A local case! See coverage in textbook, pages 124-127; but also

case itself on Stellar.)


II. ZONING AS THE PRINCIPAL TOOL OF CONTROL OF LAND USE

March 1st

• Zoning Enabling Acts and Ordinances; How a Zoning Case Gets to Court;

Standing; Exhaustion of Remedies; Securing Judicial Review; Presumption of

Validity

Cases Reviewed: Center Bay Gardens, LLC v. City of Tempe City Council

Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage

Copple v. City of Lincoln

City of Richmond v. Randall

Krause v. City of Royal Oak


Instructor presentation: “Zoning Basics”

March 6th

Density and Intensity of Use Restrictions; Site Development Requirements;

Residential Districts, Accessory Dwellings and Definitions of Family

Cases Reviewed: Jaylin Investments v. Village of Moreland Hills

Johnson v. Town of Edgartown

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Keinath v. Township of Edgmont

City of Wilmington v. Hill

http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/cases/Jaylin_v_Moreland_Hills.htm


Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 349-358; 370-406. Also read or skim starred cases

noted.

Hirt, Sonia, “Home, Sweet Home: American Residential Zoning in Comparative

Perspective,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Fall 2013.

March 8th (1st Written Assignment Due)

Commercial and Industrial Uses; Nonconforming Uses

Cases Reviewed: BP America Inc. v. Council of the City of Avon

Loreto Development Co. Inc. v. Village of Chardon

Hernandez v. City of Hanford

Conforti v. City of Manchester

City of Los Angeles v. Gage

Island Silver & Spice v. Islamorada

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 407-463. Also read starred case noted.

Peruse various municipal Zoning Ordinances and Bylaws online.

March 13th

• The Role of Zoning Change; The Zoning Variance, Special Use Permits, and Site

Plan Review

Cases Reviewed: Puritan-Greenfield Improvement Association v. Leo

Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington

One Meridian Partners, LLP v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia Ziervogel v. Washington County Board of Adjustment

Fairfield County v. Southland Corp.

Crooked Creek Conservation and Gun Club v. Hamilton County North Board of Appeals

Charisma Holding Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Lewisboro

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 695-705; 718-751; 818-824. Also read starred cases

noted.

March 15th

The Zoning Amendment: Vested Rights, Spot Zoning, Quasi-Judicial Versus

Legislative Rezoning

Cases Reviewed: Western Land Equities, Inc. v. City of Logan

http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/cases/one_meridian-v-ZBA_Philadelpha.htm


Kuehne v. Town of East Hartford

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder

Thomas Bransford and Others v. Edgartown Board of Zoning Appeals (read both the SJC and

Land Court decisions.)

Bjorklund & another v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Norwell

Amicus Brief for the Massachusetts Chapter of APA in the Bjorklund SJC case

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 751-795. Also read starred cases noted above.

Blanton, Kimberly: “Top Court Backs Town in Curbing McMansions,”

The Boston Globe, January 8, 2008.

Szold, Terry S., “Mansionization and Its Discontents,”

Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2005.

March 20st (2nd Written Assignment Distributed and Discussed)

• Downzoning; The Role of the Comprehensive Plan; Initiative and Referendum;

SLAPP Suits

Cases Reviewed: National Amusements, Inc. v. City of Boston

Stone v. City of Wilton

Haines v. City of Phoenix

Township of Sparta v. Spillane

City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Tri-County Concrete Company v. Uffman-Kirsch

Trail v. Terrapin Run

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 795-803; 825-871. Also read or skim starred cases.

Also see: Hall, E. Richard and Shelley B. Wasserman, “Terrapin Run a Year Later,”

Planning & Environmental Law, September 2009.

Guest Speaker: Joel Bard, Land Use and Municipal Law Attorney, and Partner from

Kopelman and Paige, will join the discussion, and talk about a downzoning in the

Agassiz Neighborhood in North Cambridge, Massachusetts.

March 22nd

• Flexible Zoning and Zoning Innovations: Floating Zones, Contract and

Conditional Zoning, Incentive Zoning, Special Districts, Performance and

Overlay Zoning

Cases Reviewed: Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill

Rando v. Town of North Attleborough Durand v. Bellingham


Susan C. Campion et al. v. Board of Aldermen of the City of New Haven

Campion et al. v. Board of Aldermen of the City of New Haven (CT Supreme Court decision)

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 803-818. Also read starred cases noted above.

Also see:

Burlington Planned Development District Bylaw

Providence Rhode Island Institutional Floating Zoning Regulations

Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. v. City of Monterey (For this case, see

summary/article by Eagle, “Del Monte Dunes, Good Faith, and Land Use Regulation”)

April 3rd (2nd Written Assignment Due)

Uses Entitled to Special Protection: Free Speech-Protected Uses and Religious

Uses; Telecommunications Uses

Cases Reviewed: City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County v. Borough of Litchfield

Omnipoint Communications MB Operations, LLC, v. Town of Lincoln

Reaching Hearts Int’l Inc. v. Prince George’s County

Centro v. City of Yuma

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 463-502. Also read starred cases noted.

Guest Speaker: Michael Giaimo, a DUSP alumni and Partner with the law firm Robinson

and Cole, will speak about his work on cases related to the religious use question.

III. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AND EQUITY ISSUES:

EXCLUSIONARY ZONING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EXACTIONS,

AND IMPACT FEES

April 5th

• Subdivision Regulations; Private Covenants and Restrictions;

Planned Unit Developments

Cases Reviewed: Garipy v. Town of Hanover

Baker v. Planning Board

Sinkler v. County of Charleston

Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.

(While not a major focus of the course, students should have some knowledge about

subdivision regulations and the use of private land use controls that are recorded with

subdivision plans.)


Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 873-902; 929-954.

Also skim the Gilroy and Royal Oak PUD Ordinances on class Stellar site.

(See also Szold, Terry, “Planned Unit Development”, in Planning and Urban Design

Standards, APA/John Wiley and Sons.)

April 10th

• Exclusionary Zoning and The Mount Laurel Doctrine; Discriminatory Zoning

Cases Reviewed: Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel (I &II)

City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington

Larkin v. State of Michigan Department of Social Services

Innovative Health Systems (HIS) Inc. v. City of White Plains

Budnik v. Town of Carefree

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 595-621; 654-694. Also read/skim starred cases, and

amicus brief on Stellar for City of Miami v. Bank of America / Wells Fargo (see note

below).

Ritzdorf, Marsha, “Locked Out of Paradise: Contemporary Exclusionary Zoning, the

Supreme Court, and African Americans, 1970 to the Present,” pages 43-57. In Thomas,

June Manning, and Marsha Ritzdorf, eds., Urban Planning and the African

American Community: In the Shadows, Sage Publications, 1997.

Szold, Terry S., “What Difference Has the ADA Made?”, Planning, April 2002.

Guest Speaker: Professor Justin Steil of DUSP will join us for a discussion of the

exclusionary zoning topic, including the amicus brief he contributed to for a recent

(2017) Supreme Court case (City of Miami v. Bank of America / Wells Fargo).

April 12th

Inclusionary Zoning and State Affordable Housing Legislation


Also see on Stellar: Palmer/Sixth Street v. City of Los Angeles

MGL Chapter 40B: The Massachusetts “Anti-Snob Zoning Act” (should read summary

of 40B regulations)


“The Inclusionary Housing Debate: Who Really Pays for Affordable Housing?”,

Brian W. Blaesser and Janet R. Stearns, NAR, 2004.

Inclusionary Zoning: The California Experience, National Housing Conference, Vol.

3, No. 1, 2004.

Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons Learned in Massachusetts, NHC Affordable Housing

Policy Review, Volume 2, Issue 1, National Housing Conference January 2002.

Conduct your own online search for inclusionary zoning ordinance provisions of the City

of Cambridge and the Town of Brookline.

Guest Speaker: Clark Ziegler, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Housing

Partnership, will join the class to discuss inclusionary zoning provisions and the best

ways to remove barriers to affordable housing.

April 17th Holiday (Patriots’ Day Observed)

April 19th

• Dedications, Exactions, Linkage, and Impact Fees

Cases Reviewed: Sparks v. Douglas County

Home Builders Ass’n of Dayton & the Miami Valley v. Beavercreek

Erlich v. City of Culver City

Barberry Homes v. Rodenheiser (Another local case)

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 902-929. If necessary, review Nollan and Dolan in

Chapter 2. Read starred cases noted.

Also if interested:

“Policy Guide on Impact Fees,” American Planning Association, April, 1997.

(The APA National Conference will take place in New Orleans, April 21 – April 24.

Students going to the conference are urged to attend sessions on land use law and growth

management.)


IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ALTERNATE URBAN

DEVELOPMENT FORMS

April 24th

• Introduction to Growth Management; Moratoria and Interim Controls; Quota

Programs; Timing, Phasing, Rates of Development

Cases Reviewed: Ecogen, LLC v. Town of Italy

Construction Industry Ass’n of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma

Zuckerman v. Town of Hadley

Golden v. Ramapo Planning Board

Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island

Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verde

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 705-717; 955-984. Also read or skim starred cases

noted.

Guest Speaker: Attorney Diane Tillotson, a Partner at Hemenway and Barnes, will join

the class for discussion of a legal challenge to a growth control regulation in Hadley,

Massachusetts.

April 26th

Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances, Concurrency, LEED-ND, Urban Growth

Boundaries; Controlling Growth through Public Services and Corridor

Preservation; Takings Legislation; State Programs for Controlling Growth

Cases Reviewed: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Rosenberg

Hildebrand v. City of Adair Village

Dateline Builders, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa

Citrus County v. Halls River Dev. Inc.

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 984-1033. Also read starred case noted.

And browse on Stellar:

State of Oregon’s growth management tools, Measure 37 and Measure 49.

Daniels, Katherine H. and Edward J. Sullivan, “Oregon’s 40-Year-Old Innovation,”

Planning, February 2013.


May 1st

Mixed Use Development, Transit-Oriented Development, New Urbanism, Neo-

Traditional Development, and Form-Based (and Smart) Codes; Preserving

Agricultural Land

Cases Reviewed: Gardner v. New Jersey Pinelands Commission

Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. County of Stanislaus

Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 503-515; 358-370; 577-593.

Also consider:

“The Local Arena: Changing Regulations and Standards to Address Sprawl,”

by T. Szold in Urban Sprawl: A Comprehensive Reference Guide, David Soule, ed.,

Greenwood Press, 2006, pages 377-393.

For students interested, consider looking at the Conference for New Urbanism web site:

www.cnu.org, and also the related Model Codes list, both linked to on Stellar.

Also, the following two chapters from the book referenced below:

Blaesser, Brian W., “Smart Growth: Legal Assumptions and Market Realities,”

and Kayden, Jerold S., “The Constitution Neither Prohibits nor Requires Smart

Growth,” in Szold and Carbonell, eds., Smart Growth: Form and Consequences,

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2002.

V. AESTHETICS AND THE REGULATION OF DESIGN

May 3rd

• Design Controls, Aesthetics, Urban Design, Design Review; Historic

Preservation including Transfer of Development Rights

Cases Reviewed (to be determined; not all will be assigned): Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (Cal.)

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (U.S. Supreme Ct.)

Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. City of West Hollywood

Naser Jewelers, Inc. v, City of Concord

State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley

Anderson v. City of Issaquah

Pinecrest Homeowners Assn v. Glen A. Cloninger and Assoc.

In re Pierce Subdivision Application

Figarsky v. Historic District Commission

Fred F. French Investing Co. v. City of New York

Friends of the Great Southern v. City of Hollywood

Gibbons v. Historic District Commission of the Town of Fairfield

Casey v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville

http://www.cnu.org/


Reading Assignment: PCLD pages 1033-1121. Case notes and questions may be

skimmed. Starred cases above on Stellar.

Also skim on Stellar: “Transfer of Development Rights Turns 40” by Rick and Erica

Pruetz, Planning & Environmental Law, June 2007 Vol. 59, No. 6, and the Design

Guidelines of Austin, TX and Raleigh, NC.

Final Workshop Assignment Distributed and Discussed on 5/3

“Critiquing a Local Land Use Decision and Crafting Defensible Decisions”

May 8th

(Workshop Period/Team Meetings)

May 10th

• Reviewing and Judging the Workshop Team Assignment and Results

Teams present and summarize their decisions before a small panel of “judges” who

are land use law practitioners. Team written reports are due the next day.

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE CONTROLS

May 15th

• Wetlands, Floodplain Regulation, Groundwater and Watershed Protection,

Protecting Hillsides, Coastal Zone Management, Sustainability and Climate

Change; Alternative Energy Regulations

Cases Reviewed (to be determined; not all will be assigned): Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Lopes v. Peabody (Mass SJC, Land Court, Damages)

FIC Homes of Blackstone, Inc. v. Conservation Commission of Blackstone

Rapanos v. U.S.

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Topliss v. Planning Commission (*see reading referenced below.)

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of

Engineers (*see reading referenced below.)

Robinson Township, Washington County v. Pennsylvania

Muscarello v. Winnebago County Board



“Where’s Waldo: Finding Federal Wetlands after the Rapanos Decision,” Klein,

Michael S. et al., Zoning and Planning Law Report, Vol. 29, No. 8, September 2006.

“California’s Aerial Combat,” by Paul Shigley, in Planning, February 2009.

Also, for those interested

*The sections on the Topliss and SWANCC decisions from the 2003 edition of the PCLD,

Chapter 13 “Environmental Protection,” Mandelker et al., pages 706-715 and 722-730,

posted on Stellar.

Kusler, Jon, “The SWANCC Decision and State Regulations of Wetlands,”

Association of State Wetland Managers, (www.aswm.org), 2001.

VII. CLASS WRAP-UP AND SYNTHESIS

End of assigned readings.

May 17th

• Class Wrap-up/Synthesis

• Open Review and Question Period for Final Exam Preparation

Week of May 21st

• Final Exam - Final Date and Exam Location to be Announced.

Assigned & Optional Readings

The main textbook that contains the majority of required readings for the course is:

Mandelker, Daniel R., et al., Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and

Materials,* Ninth Edition, Carolina Academic Press, 2016.

(Referred to as “PCLD” throughout the syllabus.) * Also on reserve at Rotch Library.

The “Notes and Questions” that follow each of the cases or major sections of the text

may often be perused and skimmed for general content. However, there are often useful

areas of inquiry and interesting observations contained in these sections. The

“Problems” posed after discussion of various topics and cases are also worth

considering.

In addition, various other assigned and optional cases and articles are on the class Stellar

site, as noted throughout this Course Outline.

http://www.aswm.org/


Helpful Resources

Daniel Mandelker’s web site is a companion and major course resource to the textbook.

The URL is: http://landuselaw.wustl.edu and includes case summaries, new cases, model

ordinances, representative ordinances relevant to course topics, case site maps, and

wonderful supplementary materials.

Recent United States Circuit Court cases are also available at:

www.uscourts.gov/links.html

Confused about a word, term, or definition in a case? See the on-line law dictionary at:

dictionary.law.com.

Other Recommended Readings

The journal and book listed below are also recommended for those students who

anticipate future involvement with land use law or regulatory matters, or those who wish

to explore current planning and land use law cases. Neither are required for the course.

The journal Planning and Environmental Law is available via the MIT Library and

contains many relevant and interesting articles related to the topics explored in this

course. The book is Blaesser, Brian W., Discretionary Land Use Controls: Avoiding

Invitations to Abuse Discretion, 2007, West Group.

http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html

11.367 the law and politics of land use...

Documents